This is quite the sentence. A Kiwi motorist who deliberately hit a cyclist and broke his leg has basically been grounded.
Sean Woollgar, a cyclist from Carterton just outside Wellington, was riding home from the supermarket in 2017 when Joshua Rowland started beeping his horn at him.
Woollgar said he turned and said, “Hey, what's up?” and the motorist then started tailgating him and driving alongside “really close.”
"At that point I got a bit angry, and I went up onto the pavement and swore," said Woollgar.
He tried to ride away, but Rowland followed him. Stuff reports that he eventually turned round, mounted the pavement and drove into Woollgar.
As the cyclist lay on the ground with a broken leg, Rowland walked up to him and said, "serves you right".
Woollgar’s leg was so badly broken he will likely never have full use of it again.
In court this week, Rowland's lawyer said his client’s head "was not in a good space" when the incident took place.
Rowland pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm and also admitted driving in breach of his limited licence terms, unaccompanied and without displaying an L plate.
He was sentenced to 10 months' home detention, 200 hours of community work, disqualified from driving for a year, and was ordered to pay $5000 emotional harm reparation to Woollgar. He also has to take treatment programmes and counselling as directed.
Woollgar said he never wanted Rowlands to go to prison. "He has got anger issues. He needs to deal with it and prison is not the place for that."
He did say that he would have liked him to be banned from driving for more than 12 months though. "Hopefully he will appreciate how lightly he got off," he said.
Add new comment
12 comments
Perhaps if there weren't quite so many people driving SUVs over them there wouldn't be quite so many potholes in the roads needing filling.
The Guy Kestevan video of the ride around the World Championship course is well worth a look. I enjoyed it very much. A lovely ride around Harrogate.
Why the focus on car drivers responsibility toward just cyclists, unless the agenda is to perpetuate the "us v them" narrative?
I mean, why not re-title the section "Is it the motorist's responsibility to make pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, other vulnerable road users and each other feel safe?"
Or maybe run a section entitled "Is it the responsibility of HGV drivers not to crush motorists and their families to death in flaming wrecks due to careless driving?" and see if there are the same kind of responses?
So, when Sky News are discussing domestic abuse, do they think its acceptable to ask whether its the responsibility of the abusing partner to not scare or harm the weaker partner? I would have imagined that they'd take that as a given...
I too am struggling with the question they pose and the premise from which the begin.
Does a driver have no responsibility to other road users, whether cyclists, pedestrians or other drivers?
Why are we supposed to "bury the hatchet"? What a dumb-fuck term to use!
And what are people who both drive and cycle supposed to do? Apologise to myself, kiss and make up with my non-lycra self when I've done nothing wrong?
Goodness me, and people wonder why we blame the mainstream media for stoking hatred!
They clearly don't want their readers, viewers or listeners to get along with people they define as a 'them' and not part of 'us'. It doesn't seem to matter whether that group is gypsies, migrant workers and refugees, Johnny Foreigner (whether here or minding their own business in his/her own country), LGBT, ethnic or religious minorities etc etc... they seem to put so much effort into turning us against each other. It's about time we all turned on them.
It's Kay Burley, she is to news reporting what Boris Johnson is to integrety
It's Kay Burley, she is to news reporting what Boris Johnson is to integrety
This isn't one of those tragic one punch knockouts to serious head injury things, even the stupidest of people knows that driving a car into a person is going to result in serious injury. I don't really know how you can write it off with a lenient sentence. He may as well have shot him as the intention was the same.
The outcome of this could have been so different. The cyclist could have been killed, so the sentence appears lenient. There is no mention of any treatment for his "anger problems".
Can't disagree with the leniency of the sentence but he will have to attend treatment for his problems: "He also has to take treatment programmes and counselling as directed."
Should have a perma until he can prove he is capable of using public highways safely
David Beckham banned from driving for using mobile phone
Good.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48213106